If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   One of Mitt Romney's possible first actions if he were elected president would be to eliminate hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 56
    More: Sick, Mitt Romney, same-sex couples, National Organization for Marriage, LGBT people, miscarriage of justice, Bay Buchanan, 10th Amendment, hospital visitation rights  
•       •       •

5495 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Oct 2012 at 11:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-23 09:40:58 PM
5 votes:

Amos Quito: dletter: What I'd really love to see if Romney decided to have some sort of Q&A with 4th and 5th graders, and explain to a 10 year old who asks why he thinks his two parents who happen to be both women shouldn't be able to visit each other in the hospital like other kids parents can, or why a state should decide that.


So, who should be allowed do decide such things? The Federal government?

It wasn't long ago that same sex marriage was recognized NOWHERE in the US. If the decision were left up to the Feds, do you think there is any chance that it would be recognized in the US today?

Seriously?

It took STATES acting under their Constitutionally endowed powers to break that grip - first one, then another and another.

Just about every time I hear "states rights" mentioned, some asshat brings up slavery, and tries to claim that only right-wing bigots want states rights.

I laugh.

A centralized authoritarian government is all good and well as long as you happen to agree with what it is doing, but the worm has a habit of turning, and first thing you know, you're FARKED.

So if you give GodSaint Obama the power to dictate such matters to your favor (YAY), don't cry when his replacement uses that same power to do exactly what you DON'T want (oh shiat!)

I've been watching as we rapidly shift toward a centralized authoritarian regime over the past several decades, and THAT is some scary shiat. 


/BE careful what you wish for


Federal marriage issues:

1) Immigration. I can't sponsor my spouse, even if legally married in the US, for a green card. That requires the feds not a state by state thing.
2) Federal taxes. My employer allows same-sex partner benefits such as health insurance. However, the feds, unlike with straight married couples, tax those benefits as income increasing my tax burden way above a straight married couple.
3) Inheritance. Many of the same issues with taxation.
4) Military spouse benefits (or lack of) for same-sex partners.

And as far as who chooses who can visit whom in the hospital, it should be the patient. However, the laws now don't always recognize that. My asshole brother who I hate could override my partner and not allow my partner to visit me or make decisions for me (if I'm not able to do so) because he's recognized as family and my partner is not. If I'm not able to make any decisions due to my condition, again, my partner could be completely refused any contact with me or decision making in favor of some other "family" member who I might not even like or want making decisions for me. Thus, we need legal protections for such things.

Americans should have equal rights regardless of where they are in the United States. Thank you, 14th Amendment.
2012-10-24 12:51:40 AM
3 votes:

Brick-House: To all the libtards out there, here's a full moon to howell at.

[sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com image 320x320]

With all the BS that needs to be fixed, you really think he's going to spend a second on this. Libtard Logic -Yes, they are that stupid.


Excellent point! It will be just like in 2010 when the Tea Party took Congress on the theme of Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, that's just what they focused on. They didn't waste time voting 30 times to repeal Obamacare, or vote to defund Planned Parenthood, or suppress women's access to abortion. It would indeed be stupid to think Romney would ignore something as important as the economy to work solely on social issues.  Libtards indeed!
2012-10-24 12:50:54 AM
3 votes:
One of the best things I have ever seen was back in 2008 when my best friend's partner of 12 years wound up in the hospital with an aortic dissection.

This hambeast of a nurse tried to keep him out of the ICU after his operation because he wasn't "real family" which started my friend on an HUGE loud fit.

The cardiologist came out asking what the hell was going on and once the situation was explained proceeded to lay down the most epic verbal beatdown on the nurse which left her in incoherent, terrified tears.

/csb
2012-10-23 10:04:27 PM
3 votes:

Amos Quito: WorldCitizen: /BE careful what you wish for

Federal marriage issues:

1) Immigration. I can't sponsor my spouse, even if legally married in the US, for a green card. That requires the feds not a state by state thing.
2) Federal taxes. My employer allows same-sex partner benefits such as health insurance. However, the feds, unlike with straight married couples, tax those benefits as income increasing my tax burden way above a straight married couple.
3) Inheritance. Many of the same issues with taxation.
4) Military spouse benefits (or lack of) for same-sex partners.

And as far as who chooses who can visit whom in the hospital, it should be the patient. However, the laws now don't always recognize that. My asshole brother who I hate could override my partner and not allow my partner to visit me or make decisions for me (if I'm not able to do so) because he's recognized as family and my partner is not. If I'm not able to make any decisions due to my condition, again, my partner could be completely refused any contact with me or decision making in favor of some other "family" member who I might not even like or want making decisions for me. Thus, we need legal protections for such things.

Americans should have equal rights regardless of where they are in the United States. Thank you, 14th Amendment.


Aaaand you're immediately blind to the FACT that the ONLY reason you have ANY of these rights in ANY state is because of "state's rights".

I agree with you on every point, but you ASSUME that IF the fed is given supreme dictatorial power, it will ALWAYS do what YOU want.

It won't, and when it doesn't, you won't have the option of petitioning for redress at the STATE level, or moving to another state. You'll have to either bite the bullet, or leave the country.


I agree that it is good to let a state experiment with many things as long as it does not LIMIT a right otherwise provided to Americans outside of that state. Yes, it has been the more progressive states in the country which have moved the issue of equality forward in this case. Now, it's time for the Feds to step up and ensure equality for all Americans so that legally married Americans are treated the same across the federal level. We have the states to thank for pushing that up to the Feds as an issue. Now, it looks like after at the lower federal courts including now two appellate courts have overturned the section of DOMA prohibiting equal federal treatment for otherwise legally married Americans, it looks like the Supreme Court is going to take it up. One can then only hope they move in the same direction as their lower federal courts.

The same with racial segregation and laws against interracial marriage. It was NOT OK for some states to have legal segregation. The Feds finally did the right thing and ended segregation and passed Civil Rights legislation at the national level. Ultimately, states' rights should not be a license for states to discriminate against their own citizens or prohibit their citizens from rights that Americans outside their states otherwise have.

So yes, states' rights, but not states' rights to limit the rights of their own citizens that are otherwise guaranteed to the people in the US.
2012-10-23 08:33:05 PM
3 votes:

Nadie_AZ:

In the bag? I'm skeptical. I cannot fathom how Obama went from 90+% chance to win reelection to 60% in less than a week. Especially when Romney hasn't said anything of note or of truth in any of the debates. What do people out there who don't have a lot of time to get educated on the matter think? I read interviews of many voters and think 'no way'.


it makes sense once you understand and accept the fact that the news organizations in this country are under no obligation to report factual information. they NEED this race to be close. that keeps people tuning into the race. more controversy == higher ratings == more money. so of course they're gonna lie and say everything is a tie. to them, it's just good marketing. that's all it is - just business. that's all.
2012-10-23 08:14:39 PM
3 votes:

Nadie_AZ: Huh. And the Log Cabin Republicans just endorsed him, saying he'll be too busy fixing the economy to legislate against their agenda.


lets hope the country isn't stupid enough to elect Romney. I think Obama's got this one in the bag but...ya just don't know till its over.
2012-10-24 06:08:53 AM
2 votes:

Amos Quito: dletter: What I'd really love to see if Romney decided to have some sort of Q&A with 4th and 5th graders, and explain to a 10 year old who asks why he thinks his two parents who happen to be both women shouldn't be able to visit each other in the hospital like other kids parents can, or why a state should decide that.


So, who should be allowed do decide such things? The Federal government?


Who should decide who's allowed to get married? A) states, or B) the federal government?
I'm gonna have to go with option C here. The ones that decide whether or not two people can get married should be the two people getting married.

Seriously - how hard is it to just not give a fark about your neighbor? I can not give a rat's ass about people I see all day long, why is this so hard for the religious right?
2012-10-24 01:03:33 AM
2 votes:
Fortunately for gay people, and other humans, that douchebag will never be President.
2012-10-24 01:01:53 AM
2 votes:

Amos Quito: dletter: What I'd really love to see if Romney decided to have some sort of Q&A with 4th and 5th graders, and explain to a 10 year old who asks why he thinks his two parents who happen to be both women shouldn't be able to visit each other in the hospital like other kids parents can, or why a state should decide that.


So, who should be allowed do decide such things? The Federal government?

It wasn't long ago that same sex marriage was recognized NOWHERE in the US. If the decision were left up to the Feds, do you think there is any chance that it would be recognized in the US today?

Seriously?

It took STATES acting under their Constitutionally endowed powers to break that grip - first one, then another and another.

Just about every time I hear "states rights" mentioned, some asshat brings up slavery, and tries to claim that only right-wing bigots want states rights.

I laugh.

A centralized authoritarian government is all good and well as long as you happen to agree with what it is doing, but the worm has a habit of turning, and first thing you know, you're FARKED.

So if you give GodSaint Obama the power to dictate such matters to your favor (YAY), don't cry when his replacement uses that same power to do exactly what you DON'T want (oh shiat!)

I've been watching as we rapidly shift toward a centralized authoritarian regime over the past several decades, and THAT is some scary shiat. 


/BE careful what you wish for


The problem with your argument re states' deciding who gets to do what is that some states will recognize certain things (like gay marriage) and some states won't. There are a few basic rights the Constitution and constitutional case law agree that we all are supposed to have via the Full Faith & Credit Clause and the Immunities & Privileges Clause; but the problem is that only the Federal government has the power to enforce those rights. That was what happened during the Civil Rights era, beginning with Brown v. Board of Education: The southern states didn't want to extend those privileges, citing states' rights, and the Federal government said, Sorry, you have to do it.

In some cases, allowing states to say who gets to do what inside their own borders is fine and dandy, assuming only the state's money is being spent. If, for instance, California wants to say medical marijuana dispensaries are okay and our cops are not going to bust them, that's our prerogative; but we can't stop the Feds from coming in and shutting the whole thing down. When it comes to certain fundamental rights, like voting, then states have no rights then can enforce against the will of the federal government. And where states receive federal monies (money that ALL Americans contribute to) the Feds have the right to tell the states what to do in order to keep receiving that money--like, for instance, hospitals having to allow same-sex couples access to each other in order to get Medicare money.

States cannot have the kind of "rights" they think they want, because states are not independent of the rest of the country. To be able to dictate things like who can marry whom or who can live where or who has a right to work, states would have to be free of Constitutional restrictions, which would mean they would have to be free of Federal oversight--which would mean no longer being part of the UNITED States of America. If some states really want that, that's okay by me, if they and their citizens have really thought through exactly what that would mean for them. I don't really think that there are more than one or two states that could survive if cut free of America, and certainly not the ones who are agitating loudest for "states' rights By God!" but if they want to try, more power to them
2012-10-24 12:33:07 AM
2 votes:
No one really LIKES Romney. Democrats sure as hell don't care for him. Republicans only tolerate him because he is the only hope of unseating Obama, which is their only political goal.

Obama has been demonized like no other President before; birth certificate, secret Muslim, apology tour, socialist, communist, Marxist, where is his college transcripts, Taxed Enough Already, wants to destroy America, hates America's exceptional quality, YOU LIE...

Romney is not even relevant in this election, it is a referendum on Obama. That is the level to which the GOP has conned right wing America, they actually believe a creepy f*cking Mormon who cannot stick to an ideal other than lowering taxes on the rich is the better option.

Oh, and by the way, now Romney will also toss America backwards on gay rights. Historians will marvel that even in 2012 America remained on the wrong side of the issue.

But hey, at least we will have less Big Bird and more battleships!
2012-10-24 12:32:28 AM
2 votes:

Brick-House: To all the libtards out there, here's a full moon to howell at.

[sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com image 320x320]

With all the BS that needs to be fixed, you really think he's going to spend a second on this. Libtard Logic -Yes, they are that stupid.


You're right. Romney's going to concentrate on the important stuff. Like killing Big Bird.

Actually, he'll defund PBS in order to kill programs like Frontline. It keeps making award-winning documentaries about corruption, fraud and other things near and dear to Romney's heart.

Another amazing documentary Romney and his neo-cons oppose is The Bombing of Germany, made by PBS in 2010. You see, Romney and his war-hawks don't want the American people to know there was a time when our military opposed the bombing of civilians. In the space of 6 years, the US military went from calling for a ban on all bombing of civilians to burning entire cities and their inhabitants, with conventional and atomic weapons. Shock and Awe would never have been allowed under our 1939 bombing doctrine. We can't have that kind of belief system if we are going to destroy Iran.

So that's why Romney will do the hard work of killing Big Bird. Because Romney doesn't want to admit he actually wants to kill truth, knowledge and wisdom. All three of which are troublesome to a oligarchy.
2012-10-24 12:14:21 AM
2 votes:

dethmagnetic: One of Mitt Romney's possible first actions if he were elected president would be to eliminate hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples

...why? How does that help anyone, anywhere?


When have Republicans ever helped anybody, anywhere? Excluding rich benefactors, of course. Even the people they claim to 'help' on social issues are taking it on the chin financially.

Seriously, what have Republicans ever done for the average American?

/not directed at you, Deth
//just venting
2012-10-23 11:22:49 PM
2 votes:

Brick-House: With all the BS that needs to be fixed, you really think he's going to spend a second on this. Libtard Logic -Yes, they are that stupid.


Well, he signed a pledge to. Do you not think he follows through on his pledges?
2012-10-23 09:53:47 PM
2 votes:

WorldCitizen: /BE careful what you wish for

Federal marriage issues:

1) Immigration. I can't sponsor my spouse, even if legally married in the US, for a green card. That requires the feds not a state by state thing.
2) Federal taxes. My employer allows same-sex partner benefits such as health insurance. However, the feds, unlike with straight married couples, tax those benefits as income increasing my tax burden way above a straight married couple.
3) Inheritance. Many of the same issues with taxation.
4) Military spouse benefits (or lack of) for same-sex partners.

And as far as who chooses who can visit whom in the hospital, it should be the patient. However, the laws now don't always recognize that. My asshole brother who I hate could override my partner and not allow my partner to visit me or make decisions for me (if I'm not able to do so) because he's recognized as family and my partner is not. If I'm not able to make any decisions due to my condition, again, my partner could be completely refused any contact with me or decision making in favor of some other "family" member who I might not even like or want making decisions for me. Thus, we need legal protections for such things.

Americans should have equal rights regardless of where they are in the United States. Thank you, 14th Amendment.



Aaaand you're immediately blind to the FACT that the ONLY reason you have ANY of these rights in ANY state is because of "state's rights".

I agree with you on every point, but you ASSUME that IF the fed is given supreme dictatorial power, it will ALWAYS do what YOU want.

It won't, and when it doesn't, you won't have the option of petitioning for redress at the STATE level, or moving to another state. You'll have to either bite the bullet, or leave the country.
2012-10-23 09:25:07 PM
2 votes:

dletter: What I'd really love to see if Romney decided to have some sort of Q&A with 4th and 5th graders, and explain to a 10 year old who asks why he thinks his two parents who happen to be both women shouldn't be able to visit each other in the hospital like other kids parents can, or why a state should decide that.



So, who should be allowed do decide such things? The Federal government?

It wasn't long ago that same sex marriage was recognized NOWHERE in the US. If the decision were left up to the Feds, do you think there is any chance that it would be recognized in the US today?

Seriously?

It took STATES acting under their Constitutionally endowed powers to break that grip - first one, then another and another.

Just about every time I hear "states rights" mentioned, some asshat brings up slavery, and tries to claim that only right-wing bigots want states rights.

I laugh.

A centralized authoritarian government is all good and well as long as you happen to agree with what it is doing, but the worm has a habit of turning, and first thing you know, you're FARKED.

So if you give GodSaint Obama the power to dictate such matters to your favor (YAY), don't cry when his replacement uses that same power to do exactly what you DON'T want (oh shiat!)

I've been watching as we rapidly shift toward a centralized authoritarian regime over the past several decades, and THAT is some scary shiat. 


/BE careful what you wish for
2012-10-23 08:40:48 PM
2 votes:

Nadie_AZ: Huh. And the Log Cabin Republicans just endorsed him, saying he'll be too busy fixing the economy to legislate against their agenda.


Log Cabin Republicans are the urban professional gays with enough money that they think they'll be able to just buy their way out of any problems caused by legislation that makes gays second class citizens. Everyone I've talked to has been of the attitude "well I'm not really using my rights anyway and I'd really rather have money than rights when it comes right down to it". A lot of them are either very young gays who have no idea what it was like when cops used to bust into gay bars and crack open skulls just for shiats and giggles, or from rich families and grew up with an attitude that rich people do and should have more rights than the poor because they're a better class of people which is obvious because if they weren't better then they wouldn't be rich.
2012-10-23 08:34:11 PM
2 votes:

BravadoGT: Mmm.....like the smell of liberal desperation in the air! It smells like....victory.


It's not a 'victory', nor is it a game.

/throw your shiat away
2012-10-23 08:22:46 PM
2 votes:

Weaver95: Nadie_AZ: Huh. And the Log Cabin Republicans just endorsed him, saying he'll be too busy fixing the economy to legislate against their agenda.

lets hope the country isn't stupid enough to elect Romney. I think Obama's got this one in the bag but...ya just don't know till its over.


I don't even know, anymore. But I got a clue as to why last night when one of you fine gentlemen pointed out that CNN International posted Obama won the debate handily and CNN domestic said it was a tie (even though the details showed a 48-40 victory to Obama).

In the bag? I'm skeptical. I cannot fathom how Obama went from 90+% chance to win reelection to 60% in less than a week. Especially when Romney hasn't said anything of note or of truth in any of the debates. What do people out there who don't have a lot of time to get educated on the matter think? I read interviews of many voters and think 'no way'.
2012-10-23 08:12:16 PM
2 votes:
Huh. And the Log Cabin Republicans just endorsed him, saying he'll be too busy fixing the economy to legislate against their agenda.
2012-10-24 12:02:34 PM
1 votes:

cretinbob: BravadoGT: Mmm.....like the smell of liberal desperation in the air! It smells like....victory.

[i977.photobucket.com image 290x290]


...This isn't a f**cking troll. There are actual, real, live people who would suffer if this happened. You want to do the 'U Mad', a civil rights issue is not the place for that.
2012-10-24 11:33:44 AM
1 votes:

stuhayes2010: As a hospital employee, I don't see how the president could do this. We let people visit, we don't care, it's more important that the patient be comfortable. And you can give power of attorny(can't spell that word) to whoever you want.


Legally, before Obama signed the Executive Order, families had successfully barred 'Significant Others' from visitation at hospitals because they weren't actually "family". The whole Civil Unions fiasco did not do anything to change this. If the families wanted to press it, the person in question could be arrested or sued if they tried to get into the hospital after being to what the situation was. It had happened many times before, and Powers of Attorney, even Wills had been successfully overturned in court by spiteful, asshole families.

Unfortunately, what's right and what THE Right want to do are often mutually exclusive lately.
2012-10-24 10:40:05 AM
1 votes:
Cataholic: I find it ironic that a rule enacted by well-meaning liberals (HIPAA) created unintended consequences that are now somehow going to be resolved by another rule enacted by well-meaning liberals.

How do you feel about the fact that the "unintended consequences" you refer to are wholly the result of virulent homophobic christians?


Cataholic: Unmarried straight people (and even some married ones) find themselves in the exact same situation. If you don't want your blood relatives involved in your healthcare decisions when you are incapacitated, sign a piece of paper giving that responsibility to someone else.

As has been mentioned numerous times in here already, your proposed workaround of "sign a piece of paper giving that responsibility to someone else" doesn't f#cking work. But I'm sure we can rely on you to suggest it again the next time this comes up. You guys are always good for that.
2012-10-24 09:57:25 AM
1 votes:

DancingElkCondor: Sounds like another Liberal Douche-o-Crat whiny ass article

Like Romney is going to get the Federal Govt to ban people from visiting you in a hospital room?

Most Church-affiliated hospitals could care less who is visiting you...as long as you are not harming any patients or running off with the drugs.

More likely...you will have Obama denying white folks ObamaCare....everything is "race" with that dude


Try reading the article next time, or if you're too busy, at least have Mom read it for you and sum it up.

Here's what you missed while masturbating:

Hospitals used to be able to ban people who weren't "family" from visiting places like the ICU. If the family of the person in ICU decided that they didn't like that person's lifestyle or same sex partner, or any other variation of this, they could demand that the hospital not let the significant other into ICU, and the hospital would have to enforce this. People die, and the one who actually loves them doesn't get to say goodbye.

In 2010, Obama signed an executive order stipulating that hospitals receiving federal money would have to recognize the LGBT relationships. They didn't have to throw parties and marry them in the hospital, just had to allow visitation rights.

Romney has stated that he thinks this needs to be made a state by state matter, which would mean repealing Obama's executive order.

The first part was common knowledge from the past, the second and third parts were FTFA.

Reading is a lot of fun if you give it a go... It's safe, it doesn't bite, I promise.
2012-10-24 08:59:57 AM
1 votes:
img1.fark.net As he demonstrated conclusively at the debates, Mitt Romney is an asshole
2012-10-24 05:50:37 AM
1 votes:

proteus_b: WorldCitizen: Sorry, I'm sick and up in the middle of the night. I've also just now hit month four since I've seen my partner in person since he's not an American which makes me more than a bit sensitive over these issues. Four months seems to be the number when things start to get more challenging. However, you're not helping by going around claiming that same-sex partners can obtain the same rights as opposite sex married couples by just getting a lawyer and spending some money. It's simply not true, and going around saying that it is is most definitely not helping if you are "on my side."

Maybe you wouldn't have had to go looking abroad for a partner if you weren't such an asshole...


Calling people assholes because of their relationships doesn't help your rather tenuous relationship with reality.
2012-10-24 04:18:30 AM
1 votes:

WorldCitizen: riverwalk barfly: Fark off. I'm on your side. Be belligerent to somebody else.

Sorry, I'm sick and up in the middle of the night. I've also just now hit month four since I've seen my partner in person since he's not an American which makes me more than a bit sensitive over these issues. Four months seems to be the number when things start to get more challenging. However, you're not helping by going around claiming that same-sex partners can obtain the same rights as opposite sex married couples by just getting a lawyer and spending some money. It's simply not true, and going around saying that it is is most definitely not helping if you are "on my side."


My apologies. I think you interpreted my post wrong and that is on me. I guess the sarcasm escaped you. My point was/is that same sex partners have to go through so much more to even get a slight taste of what I got for $75 , I wasn't arguing that same sex couples can get the same rights through an attorney. I wish you and your partner the best. I know it is not easy. I've seen it with my best friend and his partner - peace and love.
2012-10-24 04:09:21 AM
1 votes:

riverwalk barfly: Fark off. I'm on your side. Be belligerent to somebody else.


Sorry, I'm sick and up in the middle of the night. I've also just now hit month four since I've seen my partner in person since he's not an American which makes me more than a bit sensitive over these issues. Four months seems to be the number when things start to get more challenging. However, you're not helping by going around claiming that same-sex partners can obtain the same rights as opposite sex married couples by just getting a lawyer and spending some money. It's simply not true, and going around saying that it is is most definitely not helping if you are "on my side."
2012-10-24 03:46:50 AM
1 votes:

riverwalk barfly: My best friend from high school is gay. he and his partner have the same rights that my wife and I have. Yet they aren't married. The difference - my wife and I spent $75 on a marriage license. My friend and his partner spent $3500 on attorney fees.


BS. Same federal tax rules? If you put your wife on your health insurance, do the feds tax you on what your employer contributes to her health insurance? If I put my partner on my health insurance plan, no amount of lawyering will get me the same tax benefit as a straight married couple. Federal inheritance taxes? If they're both Americans, not a problem on living in the same country. However, if one partner is not an American, the American citizen does not have a federal immigration option to apply for permanent residency for a same-sex partner that a straight American would for his/her partner. No amount of lawyering up can grant that (trust me, that is my life and reality every day). Want a taste of what bi-national same-sex couples face, visit Immigration Equality (pops).

If you would have read the article, you would note that federal hospital visitation rights are through an Obama executive order, not legislation. So yes, the President has total, 100% control of whether this continues or dies. Presidents do have the power to overturn executive orders with the stroke of a pen, so this is one Romney could very easily actually do on Day One.

And part of equality for all Americans is not having to get a lawyer and pay thousands of dollars to obtain (still unequal) benefits and rights that automatically come to others with a marriage license and a ceremony.
2012-10-24 02:20:58 AM
1 votes:

timujin: colon_pow: the author built a beautiful strawman. then kicked it's ass!!

well done.

Do you not believe Romney will follow through on his pledges?


You'll need to be a little more specific. Some of my developers have a version control system that works well, but even it can only handle 2-3 revisions per second before two changes will corrupt each other. With Romney, we'll need to go down to millisecond versioning.
2012-10-24 02:16:35 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: And as usual, you boil it down with the voice of reason. Kudos as always.


The dirty underbelly of states rights, you leave it to states to decide that some Americans aren't equal to others.
2012-10-24 01:35:30 AM
1 votes:
Maybe this would happen...
i3.kym-cdn.com
2012-10-24 01:18:24 AM
1 votes:
This is one of those things I can't wrap my head around. Why is anyone regulating who gets to visit somebody in the hospital, other than the patient. I can see limiting the -number- of visitors per patient at one time, but it shouldn't matter who the hell it is, as long as the patient wants them there.

/Yes, that goes for you hospital admins too. Not your damn business who visits your customer.
2012-10-24 01:16:15 AM
1 votes:
It is absolutely stupid, and irresponsible to make threats against China as a goal for your first day in office. What point would it serve?

One of major goals of the USA created post-WWII international regime was to foster capitalism by providing markets for developing market goods. Fundamentally, this US policy has lifted the entire world economy. The goal has always been to use the power of economic capitalism and free markets to foster political liberalism and democratization. It is hardly time to reverse course on this policy.
2012-10-24 01:01:34 AM
1 votes:

Mikey1969: Dinobot: What about the afternoon tea?

Can't drink tea. He's Mormon, and the Church just made it official. The Words of Wisdom specifically mentions 'hot' drinks, which includes coffee and tea, but Coke and other caffeinated beverages are A-OK.

Link


But hot cocoa is okay.

So it's not hot drinks, or caffeine, but hot caffeinated drinks.

Arbitrary bullshiat made to keep people in line. Very cultish.
2012-10-24 12:58:55 AM
1 votes:

Fluorescent Testicle: You say that like we currently have that right. We don't. I've relayed this story before, but the first time I tried to visit my SO in the hospital, I was called every slur under the sun, threatened with arrest and thrown out of the building. In fact, this is a major part of why I don't believe in the half-assed cop-out that is "Civil unions."

/I usually don't care too much about the insults, but that one got me.
//They wouldn't even tell me whether she was going to survive or not.
///She did, thank everything.




Civil Unions are bullshiat, I agree, but maybe you didn't read all of TFA?


In April 2010, recognizing the extraordinary miscarriage of justice and horrifying stories of families being split apart when fathers, mothers, husbands and wives were barred from visiting one another in the hospital, Barack Obama signed an executive order mandating that any hospital that receives government funding (including Medicare and Medicaid) recognize the relationships between gays and lesbians.

Here's the executive order itself
Link
2012-10-24 12:51:24 AM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: So, who should be allowed do decide such things? The Federal government?


Yeah. If I were Gay and my significant other were to get seriously sick while we were out of state, I sure wouldn't want to be on the Internet trying to figure out if I could visit him where we were, and then deciding if it was worth it to risk moving him to a closer state that DOES allow this.

Sometimes the Feds are there to provide consistency. It's the same thing with education. If we take away Fed oversight of schooling requirements, you're going to run into kids with High School diplomas that aren't accepted because they came from a state like Kansas or Utah that doesn't give two farks about the quality of education their students get.

Yeah, I see your other argument about how it is individual states who have granted Gay marriage rights, and not the Feds, but I stand by my statement. Besides, Romney would be repealing a Federal policy already in place to TAKE AWAY this right, so your analogy doesn't really work, even though it is related.
2012-10-24 12:31:26 AM
1 votes:
Obama's first job for his second term should be an immediate executive order making gay marriage legal in all states and territories and that no state shall, at anytime, interfere with this order.
2012-10-24 12:21:48 AM
1 votes:
Wow, the one thing even most of the the anti-Gays don't usually see a problem with, and Romney has to suck up to NOM.

What

A

Douche.
2012-10-24 12:17:57 AM
1 votes:

colon_pow: whidbey: colon_pow: the author built a beautiful strawman. then kicked it's ass!!

well done.

Come on. You know you want this farking shiat to happen.

your homosexuality is none of my concern.


You really don't think this is going to happen?
2012-10-24 12:03:29 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Nadie_AZ:

In the bag? I'm skeptical. I cannot fathom how Obama went from 90+% chance to win reelection to 60% in less than a week. Especially when Romney hasn't said anything of note or of truth in any of the debates. What do people out there who don't have a lot of time to get educated on the matter think? I read interviews of many voters and think 'no way'.

it makes sense once you understand and accept the fact that the news organizations in this country are under no obligation to report factual information. they NEED this race to be close. that keeps people tuning into the race. more controversy == higher ratings == more money. so of course they're gonna lie and say everything is a tie. to them, it's just good marketing. that's all it is - just business. that's all.


The problem is that I think that media coverage in turn drives the polls.
2012-10-24 12:01:03 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Nadie_AZ: Huh. And the Log Cabin Republicans just endorsed him, saying he'll be too busy fixing the economy to legislate against their agenda.

lets hope the country isn't stupid enough to elect Romney. I think Obama's got this one in the bag but...ya just don't know till its over.


i203.photobucket.com
2012-10-23 11:58:01 PM
1 votes:

dethmagnetic: One of Mitt Romney's possible first actions if he were elected president would be to eliminate hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples

...why? How does that help anyone, anywhere?


It helps God-fearing Americans sleep at night knowing that the subhumans don't live like the rest of us.
2012-10-23 11:57:56 PM
1 votes:
were farked no matter what.

start firing congressmen instead of biatching the prez progress will ensue.

firing congressmen/wimen by firing squad will greatly improve matters.
2012-10-23 11:52:53 PM
1 votes:

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Mitt's gonna have a busy first day...

8:00-Noon: Inauguration
Noon-12:15: Restrict civil rights for gay couples.
12:15 -12:30: Tax Cuts
12:30-1:15: Lunch
1:15-1:30 : Trade war with China
1:30-1:35: Repeal Obamacare
1:35-2:45: Approve Keystone Pipeline
2:45-3:00: Open all Federal lands for oil drilling.
3:00-4:30: Create 12 million new jobs
4:30-5:00: Tax Cuts
5:00-5:15: Call Ahmadinejad, ask if he has Prince Albert in the can.
5:15-5:30: "Reinstate" Work for Welfare requirements.
5:30-6:00: Meet with Democrat and Republican leaders in Congress
6:00-6:30: Bust Federal Unions
6:30-7:00: Issue executive orders reversing all of Obama's executive orders
7:00-8:00: Light Supper
8:00-8:30: Reinstate the Mexico City Policy
8:30-9:00: Secure borders and ask all illegals to self-deport.


Yeah, but think about it. After that he has four years to convert the country to LDS
2012-10-23 11:49:59 PM
1 votes:
Eddie Izzard reference already? LOVE FARK
2012-10-23 11:49:59 PM
1 votes:

BravadoGT: Mmm.....like the smell of liberal desperation in the air! It smells like....victory.


It actually smells more like the skid marks in your pants.

Seriously, go back to Freepland and load up with more than third-rate dogshiat.
2012-10-23 11:40:56 PM
1 votes:

Brick-House: To all the libtards out there, here's a full moon to howell at.

[sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com image 320x320]

With all the BS that needs to be fixed, you really think he's going to spend a second on this. Libtard Logic -Yes, they are that stupid.


Most of those things he won't be able to get through Congress, especially if the Democrats hold the Senate. This one, all he has to do is order someone to write up a memo and sign it.
2012-10-23 09:31:55 PM
1 votes:
GODSAINT OBAMA SHALL SMITE HIS ENEMIES WITH HIS FIERY +3 SWORD OF SOCIALISM!
2012-10-23 09:15:09 PM
1 votes:

EvilEgg: Good for him. Hospitals are boring and no one really wants to visit, they just feel they are obliged to, now the gays have a built in excuse.

Now I am even more jealous, they get style, neatness, they don't get pressured to marry, now this. If they get the right to avoid those god awful jack and Jill wedding showers I'm calling my congressman.



This a good point. I don't want my Mom gloating over me in hospital with cancer because I voted for Obama.

Romney should tighten this up to exclude all visitors not approved by the patient.
2012-10-23 08:38:07 PM
1 votes:

AlwaysRightBoy: BravadoGT: Mmm.....like the smell of liberal desperation in the air! It smells like....victory.

It's not a 'victory', nor is it a game.

/throw your shiat away


Nonsense, he views oppressing people as fun. He's a Republican.
2012-10-23 08:30:21 PM
1 votes:

BravadoGT: Mmm.....like the smell of liberal desperation in the air! It smells like....victory.


Yeah, the thought of one's partner dying alone in a hospital bed tends to bring that out in someone who could face that situation. But, I suppose that's what Jesus would want, so that's what the US federal government should endorse.
2012-10-23 08:27:57 PM
1 votes:

BravadoGT: Mmm.....like the smell of liberal desperation in the air! It smells like....victory.


I don't see how or why you'd believe something like that but...hey! if it helps you sleep at night then have at it.
2012-10-23 08:07:53 PM
1 votes:
None of that that comes before whatever Israel tells him to do.
2012-10-23 05:45:08 PM
1 votes:
Mitt's gonna have a busy first day...

8:00-Noon: Inauguration
Noon-12:15: Restrict civil rights for gay couples.
12:15 -12:30: Tax Cuts
12:30-1:15: Lunch
1:15-1:30 : Trade war with China
1:30-1:35: Repeal Obamacare
1:35-2:45: Approve Keystone Pipeline
2:45-3:00: Open all Federal lands for oil drilling.
3:00-4:30: Create 12 million new jobs
4:30-5:00: Tax Cuts
5:00-5:15: Call Ahmadinejad, ask if he has Prince Albert in the can.
5:15-5:30: "Reinstate" Work for Welfare requirements.
5:30-6:00: Meet with Democrat and Republican leaders in Congress
6:00-6:30: Bust Federal Unions
6:30-7:00: Issue executive orders reversing all of Obama's executive orders
7:00-8:00: Light Supper
8:00-8:30: Reinstate the Mexico City Policy
8:30-9:00: Secure borders and ask all illegals to self-deport.
2012-10-23 05:16:27 PM
1 votes:
When Romney wins, I guarantee this happens at never o'clock
2012-10-23 05:10:04 PM
1 votes:

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Is this before or after Trade-War with China?


I'm pretty sure the only thing he's not flip-flopped on is his saber-rattling as his first act as president. This is probably second or third.
 
Displayed 56 of 56 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report